The South Carolina legislature is considering a bill to require that every woman seeking an abortion be shown a sonogram of her unborn baby before the abortion is performed. Naturally, the choice mafia is fighting this legislation viciously, having long ago recognized that it’s better to keep their customers in the dark until the money is in the bank.

One important benefit of this legislation is its ability to reduce emotional trauma in women. Today, all across America, post-aborted women are coming forward to say how much they regret their decision to have an abortion. In fact, there is a rapidly growing organization of these women called Silent No More Awareness. Many of the women involved with this group say that if they had seen an ultrasound image of their baby before the abortion, they would have made a different decision.

The abortion lobby responds by claiming that most women don't regret their abortions. Of course, they offer no proof of this, but even if it is true it is irrelevant. Lack of regret relates to the morality and the conscience of the person acting not to the rightness of the act. If some pervert sexually assaults his neighbor's five-year-old daughter, whether he regrets it or not has nothing to do with the fact that it is indefensible for grown men to have sex with five-year-old girls.

Now, if we really want to see the role that regret plays in the abortion issue, I suggest we survey women who have dealt with unplanned pregnancies in their past. Let's ask those who aborted if they now wish that they had given birth, and ask those who gave birth if they now wish they had aborted. In fact, let's challenge the abortion lobby to start publicly identifying women who allowed their children to be born but now say they wish they had killed them through abortion. The result will be that for every such woman they trot out, we could produce an avalanche of women who are living with debilitating guilt and regret over their abortions.

Needless to say, abortion defenders are never going to accept this challenge, but that doesn't really matter. My point is proven by the fact that there are literally thousands of support groups in the United States to help women overcome the emotional train wreck of abortion, but no one has found it necessary to start even one support group to help women deal with the emotional trauma of letting their children live.

That's because there is no psychological trauma associated with not killing your child. After more than 30 years of legalized abortion, the one thing we know for certain is that regrets about abortion are only experienced by women who have them, not by those who don't.

When women come forward to express their anguish over abortion, many reveal that they have needed years of counseling in order to deal with the guilt and regret of their decision. In other cases, it is obvious that these women are still traumatized by their abortions and may be so for the rest of their lives. In a breathtaking display of gall, some abortion defenders say that the pro-life movement is responsible for these emotional problems. Their argument is that these women would be fine if it were not for us constantly harping about abortion being the murder of a baby and showing pictures of the corpses. Apparently, these people not only prefer their customers to be in the dark before their abortions they would also like them to be kept there afterwards. They probably figure that having a bunch of women running around the country crying about their abortions could be bad for business.

For those abortion defenders who do not promote this “ignorance is bliss / the pro-lifers are to blame” philosophy, the normal reaction to women who say they were emotionally injured by abortion is to simply dismiss them. Some claim these women had emotional problems before their abortions, while others assert that they developed their problems afterwards for reasons that had nothing to do with abortion. To date, no one has explained how these people know all this. Evidently, the rest of us are supposed to just blindly accept that the more enlightened members of our society (ie: those who are pro-choice) intuitively understand that emotional trauma following abortion is some sort of cosmic coincidence that only befalls women who were already a little loopy to begin with.

Meanwhile, the hidden irony in all this is that women who regret their abortions may actually be more mentally healthy than those who don't. Think about it this way. In modern America it would be all but impossible for any sane and intelligent person to be unaware of the biological fact that abortion causes the death of a child. Given that, it is certainly reasonable to speculate that any woman who could submit to abortion and not be emotionally traumatized by the experience is either abysmally stupid, a psychopath, or someone with profound psychological problems.

This also applies to those people who have encouraged, arranged for, referred for, facilitated or forced women to have abortions. Just because they may not express – or even feel – regret over the children they helped to execute, they are as responsible for their deaths as the women who climbed onto the tables and put their feet in the stirrups. In fact, in some cases they are even more responsible. The woman may have been tricked or forced; the same defense cannot be made for the enablers.

In the final analysis, the question is whether America has degenerated into the kind of place in which adults can hire serial killers to butcher helpless children, have no remorse about it, and still claim to be both morally and mentally healthy. If that is where we are, then ours is truly a nation without hope. Only God knows – and only time will tell – if that is the situation. Until then, the pro-life movement will continue to fight this holocaust with all the resolution and commitment necessary for victory.

As for the significance of regret or lack thereof, we should remember that Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows saying he had no regrets about his role in the Nazi holocaust. However, his cold-blooded lack of remorse did not justify the slaughter of millions who perished in Germany's death camps. Nor will anyone's cold-blooded lack of remorse over abortion justify the slaughter that continues to claim millions in America's death camps.

In recent years, organizations like the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Pro-Life Action League, Justice for All, Missionaries to the Preborn and others have been displaying graphic images of abortion in public places. Their goal is to show the American people exactly what this holocaust is about.

Of course, whenever they do this the pro-choice gang goes ballistic. After all, when people commit crimes against humanity it is natural that they would prefer to operate in the shadows. Abortion defenders hate the graphic images of abortion for the same reason they panic over technology like 4-D and color ultrasound. Both expose realities the abortion lobby needs to keep hidden. Ultrasound transforms the pro-life argument that the unborn are living human beings from a belief into an observable fact. The graphic photos prove that abortion is the brutal murder of those children.

Until now, the abortion lobby's effort to stop this public exposure campaign often centers around the claim that the pictures are phony. Fortunately, that lie has been a colossal flop. The public may not like being forced to see these graphic images, but they have not been tricked into believing that the pro-life movement sits around and fabricates them.

So now, our enemy is rolling out a new strategy. Their latest claim is that the pro-life movement should not be allowed to show these pictures because they traumatize women.

Let's make one thing clear. The only women who may be emotionally damaged by seeing these images are those who have had abortions. Women who have not had abortions have no reason to be traumatized by them. In other words, it is abortion that causes the damage, not the pictures of abortion. If that were not the case, the graphic images would have the same effect on women who have not had abortions as they have on those who have. But no one is claiming that to be true.

When abortion apologists respond that women who've had abortions would not be traumatized if they didn't actually see what they had done, it is evidence of the paternalistic attitude these people have toward women. The fact is legal abortion survives only because the abortion industry does whatever it takes to keep both the public and its customers in the dark.

Now, if that is not true, here is a way to resolve this whole problem. If the abortion industry is so concerned about post-aborted women being traumatized by seeing these images, why don't they show them to their customers before they actually do the abortion? That way, the women who might be traumatized could make another "choice" and no woman would ever again be able to claim that she didn't know what she was doing.

Of course, that's the very reason this will never happen. Abortion profiteers know that many, if not most, of their customers would fly out the door if they saw what abortion really is. Make no mistake, the pro-choice gang is aware of the seesaw relationship between abortion information and abortion rates. They know that for either to go up the other must go down. Once that is recognized, it doesn't take a genius to do the math.

The bottom line is the pro-choice gang has inflicted a crippling emotional trauma on American women. Now they are trying to blame it on the people who tried to prevent the abortions in the first place. Like I've said many times, the gall and hypocrisy of these people is breathtaking.

Recently, the abortion mafia has unleashed a vicious and deceptive attack against crisis pregnancy centers.One of their tactics has been to propose legislation to make it illegal for these centers to offer free sonograms to women considering abortion.The Food and Drug Administration has done its part by saying that such ultrasounds constitute an unapproved use of a medical device.Of course, these same people are strangely silent when the abortion industry routinely uses drugs and medical devices for what are called “off-label” uses, but I'm sure that's just an oversite.

Now, the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine is joining the effort, and the group's president, Joshua Copel, is warning women against non-medical ultrasound.He says that even though there are currently no identified risks associated with ultrasound, there is a possibility that such risks might be identified sometime in the future.

Isn't it curious that these people never apply that standard to abortion.In fact, just the opposite is true.Right now, there are literally hundreds - if not thousands - of peer-reviewed medical studies documenting the physical and emotional dangers faced by women who submit to abortion.And yet the abortion lobby, and their lapdogs in the medical community, continue to dismiss these studies as fraudulent while attacking the people who conducted them.

The fact is, in the minds of the pro-choice gang, the term “a woman's right to choose” really means “a woman's right to chose abortion.”So make no mistake about it, their vendetta against crisis pregnancy centers is designed for one thing and one thing only: to limit the options women have when deciding whether or not to kill their children.These people clearly understand that when women see their unborn children on an ultrasound screen, many will chose not to kill them.And if that sort of thing is not nipped in the bud, it will inevitably lead to lower profits down at the local death camp.

Generally, those who defend legalized abortion couch their rhetoric in terms of rights.Occasionally, however, one will actually try to argue that butchering our offspring can be defended on moral terms.A few years back, one even wrote that having an abortion should be looked upon as a sacrament that makes the unborn victim holy.Her “reasoning” was that the baby becomes more like Jesus since both shed their blood to make other people’s lives better.

Today, the pro-choice crowd is correctly recognizing that the American people are increasingly uncomfortable about abortion.If for no other reason, modern ultrasound images of the unborn prove that the pro-life position on fetal humanity is not an unfounded theory but observable fact.

So now comes an article by Sarah Zaman.In a bid to appear less radical than her neo-feminist foremothers, she says that the pro-choice position should evolve from one that sees the unborn as “ordinary tissue to be casually thrown aside” into one which “at least recognizes that abortions end the potential for human life.”

With that, Zaman establishes a new standard for irrational pro-choice rhetoric.Only through mind-numbing stupidity could someone suggest that when male and female human beings reproduce they produce something that is only potential human life.In the first place, if the word “potential” is suggesting that the unborn is only potentially alive, that is demonstrably untrue.Even in the earliest stages of pregnancy, sonograms show movements and heartbeats that do not belong to the woman.Clearly, whatever else the fetus is, no one can logically deny that it is, at least, alive.

Maybe her use of “potential” is referring to the word “human.”However, for that to be accurate, the fetus would have to have the “potential” of becoming either a human being or some other life form—perhaps a parrot or a spider.Her problem is that there is no record of a human female ever having given birth to anything other than another human being.So while it may be reasonable to say that a fetus is a potential major league baseball star or a potential schoolteacher, it is laughable to say that it is a potential human being.Biologically, the fetus is a living human being because that is the only thing it can be.

Zaman went on to regurgitate the Clintonian maxim that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.”But if legalized abortion is such an empowering thing for women, and it is not the killing of a child, why would anyone want it to be rare?In fact, if it is such a positive thing for women, we should be clamoring for more abortions not fewer.And if it is the “fundamental constitutional right” that the abortion lobby claims, why shouldn’t it be celebrated?After all, we don’t hear anyone saying that free speech or freedom of religion should be rare.Why apply this illogical standard to abortion?

There are several other incoherent arguments in Zaman’s article, but the bottom line is that her version of “pro-choice” is even more intellectually dishonest than the one she wants to replace.The pro-choice view has always been that the unborn have no value and, therefore, it’s acceptable to treat them as if they have no value.So while their actions are indeed evil, they are at least consistent with their beliefs.

On the other hand, Zaman says the unborn do have value while at the same time contending that the law should continue to allow them to be slaughtered by the millions.Either she is actually more evil than her older colleagues (if such a thing is possible), or she has not yet discovered something they figured out long ago: the Abortion Holocaust cannot be defended using morality or reason and those who try to do so appear as fools.